D&D 5E A WOTC 5e Warlord That Would Be Acceptable To Skeptics

[Aldarc]

(Pssst. That's exactly what happened. The devs put the warlord in the PHB. And here we are...)

And they put a ranger in the PHB, and apparently they will be putting it in the PHB again because they got it wrong the first time. It's time for you to admit that the devs got the "warlord in the PHB" wrong too.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Except no they didn't. The 'warlord' in the PH is a mix of fighter and bard, depending on who you ask, and doesn't behave much like a warlord at all.

Don't be upset that they gave 5e players even more ways to bring the essence and flavor of the warlord to the table than even 4e managed...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And they put a ranger in the PHB, and apparently they will be putting it in the PHB again because they got it wrong the first time. It's time for you to admit that the devs got the "warlord in the PHB" wrong too.

Odd. I saw Mearls and Crawford insist that they would not be replacing the PHB ranger. Please provide a quote or link of them saying what you claim.

 

[Aldarc]

Odd. I saw Mearls and Crawford insist that they would not be replacing the PHB ranger. Please provide a quote or link of them saying what you claim.

So I may be mistaken that the PHB ranger will get replaced in the book. Am I mistaken though that they think something is wrong with the PHB ranger they designed and are trying to correct that?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So I may be mistaken that the PHB ranger will get replaced in the book. Am I mistaken though that they think something is wrong with the PHB ranger they designed and are trying to correct that?

Correct. You would be mistaken on both counts.

 

[Aldarc]

Correct. You would be mistaken on both counts.

So am I imagining WotC reworking the ranger in UA? Did I miss all the interviews in which Mike Mearls admits that they messed up the ranger?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'd love to read those. Please provide a link.

 

[the Jester]

Don't be upset that they gave 5e players even more ways to bring the essence and flavor of the warlord to the table than even 4e managed...

But they didn't. There is no way to build a nonmagical pc who excels at enabling his teammates while not being such a hot fighter himself. The bard is all kinds of magical. It will do for some players, but really doesn't scratch teh warlord itch for many; it's got magic all up the wazoo. The battlemaster can do a little warlordy stuff, but it will only be a small part of her fighter arsenal, and it's just a little warlordy stuff.

I am more and more convinced that, at least for my campaign, 5e needs a warlord. I'm gradually working up to taking a shot at homebrewing one.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But they didn't. There is no way to build a nonmagical pc who excels at enabling his teammates while not being such a hot fighter himself.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean the thing missing is overly necessary. At least in any kind of official published sense. Homebrew away. Make something you and your players will enjoy. But demanding that WotC publish every possible thing just because a few people are asking for it is, quite frankly, impractical.

WotC already gave us what they think 5e needs to represent the aspects and flavor of the warlord. That it is not enough for some, adequate for most, and too much for some, to me sounds like it's probably just right.

 

[Aldarc]

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean the thing missing is overly necessary. At least in any kind of official published sense. Homebrew away. Make something you and your players will enjoy. But demanding that WotC publish every possible thing just because a few people are asking for it is, quite frankly, impractical.

WotC already gave us what they think 5e needs to represent the aspects and flavor of the warlord. That it is not enough for some, adequate for most, and too much for some, to me sounds like it's probably just right.

Define "a few." How does this "few" wanting a 'warlord' compare in numbers with those wanting an 'artificer,' 'psionics,' or an alternate ranger?